London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202215093)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215093

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of issues with the ventilation system and reports of damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reporting of a pest infestation.
This report has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaints handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 26 March 2018. The property is a two-bedroom first floor flat which has a mechanical ventilation system.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
The landlord defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [us], our own staff, or those acting on our behalf affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process as follows:
Stage one sets out that the landlord in the first instance will “aim to resolve the complaint there and then”. If it is unable to do so it would refer the matter on to the “department best placed to help” who would contact the resident by the end of the next working day. The landlord aims to respond back on the matter within 10 working days with an outcome.
If the complaint cannot be resolved at the first stage, it is passed to be dealt with at stage two by someone not previously involved. It will contact the resident to provide them the opportunity to explain the issue. It will aim to provide a response within 20 working days.
If the landlord at either stage of the complaints process was unable to meet the intended response time, it would write to the resident within a further 10 working days to provide an update.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it will cover routine/reactive repairs and pest control. It adds that it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, the common entrance ways and fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation.
The repairs policy explained in relation to service standards that:
1. It would aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
2. In the case of emergency works it would attend within 24 hours.
3. If emergency works occurred out of hours, it would attend within four hours to make safe and lower the immediate risk. Any follow-on repair would then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
In terms of pest control, the repairs policy explains it would deal with “all pharaoh ants, cockroaches, squirrels and rat infestations within all tenanted homes and that it would “deal with mice, fleas, bedbugs and wasps where the tenant has been unsuccessful in dealing with the issue themselves or where there is evidence of a wider infestation in the block”.
The landlord’s compensation policy explains that “in line with our customer promise, where we get things wrong and fail to provide a quality service we need to put things right. This may include paying compensation”. The policy sets out in terms of compensation that this “may be a mix of statutory based payments, our own discretionary based payments and reimbursement and where appropriate, rent/service charge refunds”.
The compensation policy states under “circumstance where compensation or reimbursement may be offered” that this includes:
1. Where the landlord fails to respond to or process a complaint within agreed response times.
2. Where it fails to complete repairs for which it is responsible to agreed response times and does not advise customers of any exceptions.
The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it will consider discretionary compensation where the resident suffers a loss of service/facility and it has not been resolved within given timeframes and service level agreements. In terms of the amount paid as discretionary compensation, the policy does specify any set figure.

Summary of events.

Following the resident having raised the issue of mould in both the bedroom and living room, the landlord arranged for an inspection of the property. The landlord’s limited records do not show when the resident initially raised this concern, but its repair logs show a job was raised on 17 January 2022. The landlord has since explained that it has encountered difficulties in obtaining the information from its contractor.
An inspection of the property was carried out on 20 January 2022. The inspection report noted in relation to extractor fans/air vents that the “mechanical ventilation system is broken”. Mould was recorded on the front wall of two rooms. Under the summary review the report stated, “mechanical ventilation system is broken, bathroom and kitchen have no windows, the flat has only three windows resulting in insufficient ventilation even when the windows are open”.
A work order was recorded on the landlord’s repair logs on 1 March 2022. The notes explained that this was follow up work from the previous job raised in January 2022 and that work to repair the broken mechanical ventilation system “must be completed”. The repairs log noted that this job was completed on 17 March 2022.
The landlord’s repair log set out a further work order on 25 April 2022. This job was described as “service/overhaul ventilation” and recorded as completed on 12 May 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 to raise a complaint about the time taken to fix the ventilation system. She explained:
1. The landlord had failed to maintain and service the ventilation system which had resulted in the breakdown and it “had taken far to long to repair”. The resident added that she was unaware as to how long the system had not been working and it was only the landlord’s visit and report on 20 January 2022 which confirmed that this was the reason for the damp and mould in the property.
2. Due to the excess moisture there was silverfish in the property and this had affected her son’s health.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 16 May 2022 and confirmed that it would reply by 27 May 2022.
The landlord’s repair log contained a work order on 26 May 2022. This was noted to be a follow up to the job raised on 25 April 2022 to service/overhaul the ventilation. Under description the work order stated that the whole ventilation unit needed to be replaced.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 May 2022 as she wished to complain of “the negligence” she had experienced. She set out:
1. She had not received any instructions or detailed information on the ventilation system including how to use and maintain it. Neither was there a sign off sticker on the system, indicating in her opinion, that the system had never worked properly since she had moved in.
2. There was mould all around the windows and in the bathroom which was due to the “build-up of high levels of moisture” due to the faulty ventilation system. As she lived on a busy road, near factories, opening the windows to provide ventilation allowed “outdoor pollution” to come in to the property. In addition, during the winter months this also increased the cost of heating to the property.
3. She was informed to clean the black dust/pollution from the air vent but having read the instruction booklet she understood this was not to be touched as “they are positioned in a way to work correctly”.
4. She understood the system needed to be serviced yearly to prevent it breaking down. If the landlord was not servicing it, she questioned what she was paying £111 a month in service charges for.
5. Her son was experiencing breathing issues and she had sought advice form her GP as she believed this was caused by the mould and lack of ventilation.
6. As the bathroom extractor did not work this led to a build up of steam which was released when the door was opened. This steam had also triggered the smoke alarm which was inconvenient.
7. She had an infestation of silverfish which she was treating with pest spray and she had found these in the bedroom as well as in the carpet.

The user guide, which she had only just read, set out that units needed to be professionally inspected and annually serviced. Filters needed to be cleaned and/or changed and the heat exchanger needed to be checked. This had not happened. She questioned why it had not been clear to the landlord that it was legally responsible for replacing the filters.
She had yet to hear back from the landlord by the deadline of 27 May 2022 which it had provided to her when it acknowledged her complaint.

The landlord’s internal communication on 30 May 2022 show that it had enquired about the issue of changing the filters every six months and received clarification that this should have been included in the home user guide provided to residents when they moved in. In addition it was informed that the landlord did not currently service ventilation systems and that it carried out reactive repairs as needed.
The landlord called the resident on 31 May 2022 to discuss the complaint. Following the call, in which it noted the resident had requested the complaint be escalated to the next stage, it sent her the stage one response. It explained:
1. There was no regulatory requirement for the ventilation system to be serviced on a regular basis although it stated that the manufacturer may recommend it. It added it had never serviced mechanical ventilation heat systems but instead dealt with them on a reactive basis.
2. In terms of the filters, this was generally the resident’s responsibility to change them although it accepted that the home user guide was not clear. It added that, if the resident had reported an issue with the ventilation system and the filter was the issue, then it would change or clean it. It noted the resident had explained the manufacturing guide set out that “a competent person should maintain the filters” and that she did not have the necessary skills to do this and said that it would take this point back to the “development team to investigate”.
3. The contractor would be returning the following day (1 June) to “replace the whole ventilation system”.
4. Whilst it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two, it set out there was a delay in the stage two review and it “may be several months before you are contacted”.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 31 May 2022 setting out that she would “not be making any payments to yourselves until I am living in a safe and healthy environment and my complaint has been responded to”. In further emails sent on the same day, the resident added that the ventilation system had never worked and she referred the landlord to her email from the previous day. She also added she was unaware of an appointment scheduled for 1 June 2022 to have the system fixed.
The landlord’s internal communication on 31 May 2022 confirmed that changing the filters was not difficult and that it was not a technical task so any able-bodied person should be able to do this. It also added that current handover residents were shown how to change the filter although it could not confirm how this had been done in the past.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 August 2022. She explained that she had called on 22 July 2022 for an update as the ventilation was still not fixed and the issue had been affecting her health and she was unable to sleep. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence via a contemporaneous note of the resident’s call from that time.
The landlord replied to the resident on 2 August 2022. It explained that the complaint was at stage two of its complaints process and that there was an outstanding work order to replace the unit. It told the resident to contact the contact centre for an update, although it added it would speak to the contractor.
The resident chased up for a further update on 19 August 2022.
The landlord chased its contractor on the matter on 22 August 2022, who informed the landlord that it had attended the property on 10 August 2022, however the supplier had sent it the wrong part. Therefore it had been unable to replace the whole system. It had reordered the new parts, which it would cover the costs for. The contractor also informed the landlord that the date given to the resident in the stage one response that it would attend on 1 June 2022 was a date provided by the landlord and not by it.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 August 2022 to explain the reason for the delay. It added the contractor would be in touch once the missing part had been sourced and that it hoped this would be within the next few days. It confirmed that it would continue to chase the matter up with the contractor. In terms of the resident’s question about maintenance and regular servicing, it confirmed that this had been passed to its reviews team to look at as part of the existing complaint.
The contractor confirmed on 5 September 2022 that it had spoken to the resident and booked an appointment on 22 September 2022 to replace the ventilation system.
The resident exchanged a series of emails with the landlord on 5 September 2022. She confirmed that she had booked the appointment with the contractor to fit the missing parts however she was still awaiting a response back to her complaint. The resident added that her son was experiencing breathing difficulties and needed a pump. The landlord told the resident to contact the customer relation team about her complaint. It added it could chase the contractor the day after the scheduled work was due to ensure it had been completed. The resident also enquired about the delay for the stage two response. The landlord set out that it was behind in dealing with stage two complaints and these were being dealt with in date order. It stated it would be in touch in due course.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 September 2022. She provided the landlord with photos showing the mould in the property. In response the landlord confirmed that it would provide a full response by 16 September 2022.
The resident called the landlord on 22 September 2022 to confirm that no one had attended. She followed this up with an email to a number of individuals who worked for the landlord. Following chasing by the landlord, its contractor confirmed that it had had to cancel the appointment for the previous day due to health and safety grounds since the contractor who had returned to work following an operation was unable to safely carry out the repairs. It confirmed that it would contact the resident later on in the week to book the works in.
The landlord chased the matter with the contractor on 23 September 2022, and asked whether someone else could carry out the work. The contractor confirmed it could attend on 27 September 2022 and asked the landlord to confirm this with the resident.
The resident called the landlord on 4 October 2022. She explained that she was awaiting a mutual exchange to take place but she wanted the ongoing complaint to be dealt with first.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 October 2022. The email set out:
1. The maintenance contracts on the ventilation system had been set up on a reactive basis by a member of the team who was no longer working there. It was therefore unable to provide a reason as to why they had not been set up on a contract agreement basis. It added it would be putting all ventilation systems on a contract basis, although this would take some months to occur.
2. That to compensate the resident for not being with a working ventilation system it would offer £80 per year for the 4 years the resident stated the system was not working. It would also add £200 for the time and effort spent by the resident to give a total of £520.
3. That the resident should get in touch if there was any outstanding issue apart from the silverfish.
The resident exchanged a series of emails with the landlord on 4 October 2022. She rejected the landlord’s offer stating it would be inadequate for the distress and health concerns the issue had caused. The landlord replied to say it would discuss the matter with a colleague and reply to her. The resident also informed the landlord of an infestation of bugs in the kitchen cupboards which she asked if the landlord’s contractor could deal with when it attended to deal with the silverfish.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 October 2022. She explained she had been patiently awaiting the landlord’s response and revised offer of compensation; however she was not impressed by the length of time the landlord was taking. She added that she wanted to complete her mutual exchange, for which the relevant papers had been submitted. She stated the landlord had admitted that the system had not been working for four years and that it had not followed the manufacturer’s recommendations to get the system serviced yearly, but rather worked on a reactive basis.
The landlord responded on 11 October 2022 offering an amount of £1,160. This was based on £240 for each year plus £200 for time and effort. The resident exchanged further emails on this date stating that she wanted the landlord to clear her arrears to enable her to be able to move. She explained she had informed the landlord previously she would not be paying her rent until the issue had been fixed. The landlord responded that it could increase the amount by a further £80 for poor complaints handling, but that the amount of £1,240, which could be used to offset some of the arrears, was the most it could offer.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 12 October 2022 confirming the offer of £1,240. The resident explained that whilst she remained dissatisfied and would be escalating the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service she would accept the offer to reduce her rent arrears.
The resident has confirmed to this Service that she took out a loan to help her pay her rent arrears which had been more than £4,700. She added that she had since moved from the property via a mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of issues with the ventilation system and the damp and mould.

The landlord was alerted to the mechanical ventilation system at the property not working following the inspection which was carried out on 20 January 2022. This inspection had been the result of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould in several rooms of the property. The inspection report noted that the issue with the ventilation system together with the extractor fans for the kitchen and bathroom not working had been reported to the landlord on the day the inspection visit took place.
Whilst the landlord had been informed of the issue at that time, its limited records show that a work order for the ventilation system repair was not raised until March 2022, over a month later. The landlord has not provided any evidence to explain the delay in raising this or to explain what it had been doing in the intervening period. Despite the repairs log noting that the system needed to be fixed and that this issue had followed on from the job raised in January 2022, there was another gap of several more weeks until the part to replace the ventilation system had been ordered by the landlord’s contractor. Again the landlord has been unable to explain the reason for the delay or demonstrate that it had provided any update to the resident in the intervening period.
The landlord stated in its stage one response that it had not been alerted to the issue with the ventilation system until 25 April 2022. It added that, upon being alerted to the matter at that time, a service was carried out and that following confirmation that the system needed to be replaced an order for the new parts was made on 26 May 2022. The landlord’s account differs from the evidence from the inspection report and the repairs log. Whilst the landlord’s contractor and other operatives attended the property, they had done so on behalf of the landlord. It was therefore reasonable to assume that the findings of the inspection report and of the service would have been relayed back to the landlord. Following the service, which the repair records show was completed on 12 May 2022, the parts were not ordered until 26 May 2022, two weeks later. The landlord has not provided any details why it took it two weeks after the service to order the replacement parts.
The ordering of the replacement parts occurred after the resident had contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 to raise a complaint about the situation with the broken ventilation system. This was due to the lack of updates provided since the issue had first been noted in January 2022. The inability of the landlord to either update the resident or progress with the repair to the ventilation system was not appropriate. It gave the impression to the resident that it was not taking her concerns seriously or acting in accordance with its repairs policy in terms of timescales. Furthermore, by not fixing the ventilation system, this had the knock-on effect of not resolving the resident’s damp and mould concerns.
By the time the landlord had issued the stage one response on 31 May 2022, it had ordered replacement parts for the ventilation system. However it provided incorrect information to the resident, about when the contractor would be attending, leading her to be under the impression that the repairs would be carried out on 1 June 2022. Although the resident had questioned whether an appointment had been scheduled on that day, as she was unaware of it. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence of its response to her on this matter.
There was a gap in the landlord’s records provided to this Service between 31 May 2022 and 1 August 2022, when the resident contacted it to chase for an update on the repairs. Although the resident had been made aware of a delay by the landlord in terms of the escalation of her complaint on 31 May 2022, the lack of any update on the repairs was unreasonable and would have caused the resident to believe that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. Furthermore following the resident’s request for an update on the repairs on 1 August 2022, the landlord failed to provide this and instead referred the resident to contact a different area if she required an update. Whilst it stated it would also speak to the contractor, there was no evidence that the landlord did this at that time. It instead required the resident to chase it again on 19 August 2022 before the landlord contacted the contractor about the matter.
The landlord’s contractor explained to the landlord that some of the delays were caused by the supplier sending it the wrong parts and that, whilst it had attempted to fit the parts, it had not resolved the ventilation system issues. Whilst the landlord did act appropriately by further questioning the contractor over the situation, it did not actively pursue the matter to ensure that there were no further delays on the repair taking place. As the matter had been outstanding for over 6 months at this time, with several gaps where no action appeared to have taken place, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have appointed a dedicated point of contact to ensure that there would be no further delays. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord. Instead of doing this it took the contractor’s word that it would be contacting the resident in a few days time to arrange an appointment, which did not occur. Whilst the contractor did contact the resident, this was not until two further weeks had elapsed and an appointment was then scheduled for a further two weeks time.
Following the landlord’s contractor cancelling the appointment on 22 September 2022 on health and safety grounds the landlord did act reasonably by pursuing the contractor over when a new appointment could be arranged. Whilst the contractor had initially informed the landlord that it would reschedule the matter and contact the resident in a few days time, the landlord, perhaps aware of previous assurances by the contractor which had not occurred, actively pursued the contractor over the matter resulting in a new appointment being scheduled for a few days later.
In terms of the landlord addressing the damp and mould, its repair logs show that its operatives attempted to clean off the damp and mould from around the windows and walls however it had returned. Given this, it was clear that in order to resolve the damp and mould further action was required and that this involved improving the ventilation in the property. Although the inspection report had suggested the opening of windows for short periods the resident was reluctant to do this due to the risk of other pollutants entering the property from the commercial buildings near to it. This meant that the only viable solution was to fix the mechanical ventilation system.
The landlord’s records do not show any further issue of damp and mould following the completion of repairs to the mechanical ventilation system.
In terms of the resident’s other concerns about the servicing and maintenance of the ventilation system, the landlord has explained that the member of staff who had arranged the reactive repair contract as opposed to a service agreement no longer worked with it. It did however make enquiries about whether there was any legal requirement for it to annually service the system, in keeping with the annual check required on gas appliances. This had resulted in it determining that there was no legal requirement for this to happen, although it accepted that the manufacturer might recommend this occurred. As a result it decided to actively change to a service contract going forwards, which it informed the resident might take some time to implement. It also accepted that, whilst the responsibility for replacing filters normally rested with the resident, it could not confirm that the resident had been made aware of this at the outset, and the new home guide was unclear that it would have changed the filters if this was required.
The resident has stated that the ventilation system had never worked since she moved into the property. She states that once the repairs were completed in September 2022, she was made aware of how noisy the system was, once it was on and she could not recall hearing this noise during the period she had previously lived there. Whilst it is not possible for the Ombudsman to say with reasonable confidence when the ventilation system had actually ceased working, the landlord in making its offer of compensation to the resident has seemingly accepted the ventilation system was not previously working for a period of four years. Given the landlord has no records to show the system was working when the resident moved in, this was reasonable.
The landlord has made an offer of compensation to the resident of £960 in relation to the failure of the ventilation system as well as £200 for the time and trouble the resident had taken in pursuing the matter. The figure of £960 was based on an amount of £240 per year to the resident for each of the four years the landlord accepted the ventilation system had not worked correctly.
Although the resident has asked for the landlord to cover her rent arrears which amounted to over £4,700 at the time of the stage two response, the landlord’s offer of compensation was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an appropriate amount. Whilst the ventilation system did cause the resident distress and inconvenience, the resident was able to continue to live in the whole of the property, so compensation to cover a proportion of her rent for the period would not be appropriate. Also even if the ventilation system had not been working from the time the resident moved to the property, she had not been aware of any issue until January 2022. Given this the landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable given the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of a pest infestation.

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it would cover certain types of pest infestation, including those where the resident had been unsuccessful in dealing with the matter themselves. Whilst the list of pests covered did not specifically include silverfish, the landlord had not informed the resident that it would not cover any silverfish infestation. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord, especially as silverfish are particularly prevalent in damp and dark places. As the landlord delayed in resolving the ventilation system, this meant it was unable to adequately address the cause of the damp and mould in the property. Without the ventilation system working and, as the resident was reluctant to open the limited windows in the property, there were limitations on what the landlord could do to reduce the damp and mould in the property and as a consequence deal with the silverfish in the property.
Although the resident had raised the issue of the silverfish in her original complaint to it in May 2022, the landlord’s stage one response did not address the issue. Equally the landlord’s stage two response had also not mentioned it although the landlord had commented on the matter in its email communication to the resident prior to the issuing of the stage two response when discussing compensation. The landlord’s email of 4 October 2022 had stated “would you be able to let me know if there is anything outstanding bar the silverfish that they should be in contact with you shortly”.
The landlord has confirmed that no works order was raised for the silverfish until January 2024 (by which time the resident had moved from the property). Whilst the resident did move via a mutual exchange in December 2022, this was still several weeks after the landlord had completed its internal complaints process. The impact to the resident for the failure by the landlord to arrange a contractor was that would have caused her a degree of distress and inconvenience. This was because the landlord had failed to follow up after acknowledging the issue was one the resident did not need to contact it again about as it was in hand.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

Following the resident having raised her original complaint, the landlord issued the stage one response within 10 working days in keeping with the complaints policy.
The landlord’s acknowledgment to the resident that her complaint would be escalated to stage two on 31 May 2022 set out that there were delays in providing its final response. It added that it could be several months before she heard from it. Whilst this did make the resident aware of the situation, this was not in keeping with its complaints policy which stated the stage two response would be issued within 30 working days, and the resident would be updated if it took longer than 20 working days. The landlord instead sent the stage two response after 19 weeks.
Although the landlord did warn the resident of a delay, this was still a failing on its part. The landlord did not update the resident on the status of the complaint, with it only replying after she had chased it to ask for an update on the matter. Whilst the landlord was presumably waiting for the ventilation system to be fixed before it replied, the stage two response did not apologise for the lengthy delay. Prior to issuing the final response the landlord and resident had been exchanging emails discussing the level of compensation. The landlord had informed the resident following her response to its initial offer that it would “have a chat to my manager and come back with a revised compensation offer”. Whilst no timeframe had been set by the landlord it took the landlord a further week to respond, and even that was only after the resident had chased it for a response. This was a failing and would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience given the length of time the matter had been outstanding and since she was looking to complete a mutual exchange which required her to clear her rent arrears.
Whilst the landlord did make an offer of compensation of £80 for poor complaint handling as part of its internal complaints process, the amount offered was not adequate to recognise its failings in this case. The landlord repeatedly failed to update the resident on the complaint or respond to her in keeping with the deadline contained in its complaints policy. A total amount of £200 is more reasonable given the circumstances.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The landlord has informed this Service that it has been unable to provide a few pieces of communication including from its contractor to the resident, despite chasing it. This included details of when the resident had first contacted it about the damp and mould. The landlord has also not provided the full exchange of communication between the reviewer dealing with the complaint at stage two and the resident, as it stated the individual was on a career break. The resident however did provide several exchanges of emails which help to clarify how the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage two had been increased on a few occasions.

The appear to be significant gaps in the landlord’s repair records. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, its overall management of the issues and condition of the property.
Given the extent of the issues this investigation has highlighted with the landlord’s record keeping, and the resulting impact on its ability to ensure that repairs were completed promptly without significant delays the Ombudsman considers it is appropriate to make a separate finding about the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the landlord’s handing of the issues of the ventilation system and reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

Whilst there were significant delays during which the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had been proactively chasing repair of the mechanical ventilation system, it did offer compensation which was calculated from when the resident had initially moved into the property. This was as it was unable to evidence the ventilation system had been working at that time. In addition it made amendments to its policy ensuring it would service the system going forwards. The compensation offered was in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy including an amount for time and trouble and in the Ombudsman’s opinion constitutes an offer of reasonable redress.
The landlord had accepted in its stage two response that its contractor would be in contact with the resident in due course over the pest infestation. This was following the fixing of the ventilation system. However the landlord has explained that no work order was created at that time. The only work order it had for the issue was a year after the resident had moved out of the property. This infestation would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience, especially as she was looking to complete a mutual exchange.
There was a delay from the landlord at stage two of the complaints process. The landlord also failed to adhere to the timescale it provided to the resident at stage one. It did not make an apology in either its stage one or stage two response. Whilst it did make an offer which had included £80 for poor complaints handling, this offer was not proportionate to the lengthy delay in issuing the stage two response.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the conversations which took place between the landlord’s operatives and the resident. The landlord also failed to keep contemporaneous records which noted when the resident had contacted it about the damp and mould initially. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further amount of £320 on top of the amount offered of £1,240 in the stage two response, which it has previously paid. The further amount is comprised of:
  1. £100 for its failure to adequately deal with the pest infestation at the property.
  2. £120 for the failure in its complaints handling.
  3. £100 for its failure in its records keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it now has appropriate arrangements in place for the servicing of mechanical ventilation systems and that residents have been advised on the issues of maintenance, repairs and responsibilities with regards to the changing of the filters on these systems.